| People v Goodell |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 01878 [104 AD3d 1026] |
| March 21, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v DavidA. Goodell, Appellant. |
—[*1] Kathleen B. Hogan, District Attorney, Lake George (Kevin P. Donlon of counsel),for respondent.
McCarthy, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Warren County (HallJr., J.), rendered November 30, 2011, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of thecrime of burglary in the second degree.
Defendant was charged in a seven-count indictment with burglary in the seconddegree, criminal contempt in the first degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree, assaultin the third degree, endangering the welfare of a child, criminal mischief in the fourthdegree and criminal contempt in the second degree arising out of an incident where heentered his former girlfriend's home and became involved in a physical altercation withher. Defendant pleaded guilty to burglary in the second degree and waived his right toappeal in full satisfaction of the indictment as well as other pending charges andadditional charges that the People sought to pursue against him. Consistent with the pleaagreement, County Court sentenced defendant to a prison term of 15 years followed byfive years of postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals.
Initially, neither the People's representation that they planned to pursue an additionalcharge of burglary in the first degree if defendant did not accept their offer to pleadguilty to burglary in the second degree nor County Court's explanation of thesecircumstances constituted coercion to induce defendant's guilty plea (see People v Wolf, 88 AD3d1266, 1267 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 863 [2011]; People v Morelli, 46 AD3d1215, 1216 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d [*2]814 [2008]; People v Coppaway, 281 AD2d 754,754 [2001]). Furthermore, inasmuch as the record does not indicate that defendantmoved to withdraw his guilty plea or vacate the judgment of conviction, his challenge tothe factual sufficiency of the plea allocution has not been preserved for our review (see People v Ferro, 101 AD3d1243, 1244 [2012]; Peoplev English, 100 AD3d 1147, 1148 [2012]). The exception to the preservationrule is not applicable here as County Court conducted an appropriate inquiry to clarifydefendant's concerns and to ensure that he understood the available options and wasentering his plea knowingly and voluntarily (see People v English, 100 AD3d at1148; People v Granan, 48AD3d 975, 975-976 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 959 [2008]). Defendant'sargument that counsel was ineffective is also unpreserved (see People v Sterling, 57AD3d 1110, 1112-1113 [2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 788 [2009]; Peoplev Morelli, 46 AD3d at 1217).
Peters, P.J., Lahtinen and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.